Prayer Man

Sat 14 Dec 2013, 11:07 am

First topic message reminder :

Original Prayer Man thread at the Education Forum
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20354-oswald-leaving-tsbd/

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

G'day,
I have to say I find it oh so mildly amusing reading some of the comments, thoughts and rants associated on other forums regarding Prayer Man / Oswald on the front steps. It's sad really, watching people who have spent a lifetime married to an idea or a theory, only to witness that idea or theory shattering into a thousand pieces and not accepting the inevitable singular conclusion which is staring them in the face. To Greg Parker, Sean Murphy and all the other amazing researchers following the path of truth in this case I tips me Lid.

Mick

Sat 09 Jul 2022, 3:06 pm

Jake_Sykes wrote:Thanks for the information gentlemen. I'll stand corrected that there is a guy, but the BS stands correct.

Absolutely, Jake.

Sat 09 Jul 2022, 7:28 pm

Anyway. all that's left to say is that Speer comes across as a calm, serious voice. And that does fool others. Glad to say it's not fooling anyone here.

Agreed Greg. When compared to many others at the EF who espouse crazy theories Pat seems to be quite a calm guy like a voice of reason. However his stance on PM alone makes us realize he is not exactly credible.

Sat 09 Jul 2022, 7:29 pm

Sun 10 Jul 2022, 6:32 pm

Mon 08 Aug 2022, 7:20 am

https://conradscrime.tumblr.com/post/679938560177127424/was-lee-harvey-oswald-prayer-man?fbclid=IwAR0AoiLxvq5Hl3tJMhp5U_TsKS6Zu4PVV8-aYQOPE5NYi0qjTcrWgd6oLjk

Mon 08 Aug 2022, 11:05 am

Breaking news! A friend of Davidson has revealed that PM is Sacha Baron Cohen. Thank God that shit is over.

Wed 10 Aug 2022, 2:00 pm

steely_dan wrote:Breaking news! A friend of Davidson has revealed that PM is Sacha Baron Cohen. Thank God that shit is over.

Sounds conclusive. Certainly explains the lack of cleavage. Just one thing, and not to be a contrarian at all, but did the friend explain why SBC was wearing a wig and carrying a purse?

Wed 10 Aug 2022, 7:51 pm

Mon 15 Aug 2022, 11:44 am

Alibi definition:
1 : the explanation given by a person accused of a crime that he or she was somewhere else when the crime was committed. 2 : an excuse intended to avoid blame She made up an alibi for why she was late.

From the EF - Tom Gram said

I'm relatively neutral in this debate. It's not my intention to stir anything up here, and I do see your point that having two completely different and competing theories of Oswald's alibi can be counterproductive. However, I don't think the subjective interpretation of certain items of evidence by Murphy, Kamp, etc. is any less speculative than some of the interpretations in chapter 4 of your website. The evidence in many cases could really go either way.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/page/11/

Tom, as per the definition of alibi... as Oswald never gave the phoney account of being stopped by Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor, it doesn't count as an alibi. An alibi cannot be foisted on someone by the cops.

And that leads to the second point... it quite obviously was never meant to be an alibi, and even if Oswald agreed to use it in court as one, he was dooming himself. All the prosecution needed was evidence that it was possible for him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd in time for this mythicxal encounter - and they had that. The jury would certainly trust those recreations proving it possible, over any evidence that he ws not "out of breath" when encountered. I don't think the tester was either, for that matter.

Speer is just another Doyle but with more brains and self-control. Moreover, his vendetta against this has nothing to do with the state of the evidence. Like Doyle, it has everything to do with with personal grievances against me and other members here.

Petty, egotistical and spiteful. But he does disguise it - unlike Doyle.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 7:46 am

greg_parker wrote:Alibi definition:
1 : the explanation given by a person accused of a crime that he or she was somewhere else when the crime was committed. 2 : an excuse intended to avoid blame She made up an alibi for why she was late.

From the EF - Tom Gram said

I'm relatively neutral in this debate. It's not my intention to stir anything up here, and I do see your point that having two completely different and competing theories of Oswald's alibi can be counterproductive. However, I don't think the subjective interpretation of certain items of evidence by Murphy, Kamp, etc. is any less speculative than some of the interpretations in chapter 4 of your website. The evidence in many cases could really go either way.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/page/11/

Tom, as per the definition of alibi... as Oswald never gave the phoney account of being stopped by Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor, it doesn't count as an alibi. An alibi cannot be foisted on someone by the cops.

And that leads to the second point... it quite obviously was never meant to be an alibi, and even if Oswald agreed to use it in court as one, he was dooming himself. All the prosecution needed was evidence that it was possible for him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd in time for this mythicxal encounter - and they had that. The jury would certainly trust those recreations proving it possible, over any evidence that he ws not "out of breath" when encountered. I don't think the tester was either, for that matter.

Speer is just another Doyle but with more brains and self-control. Moreover, his vendetta against this has nothing to do with the state of the evidence. Like Doyle, it has everything to do with with personal grievances against me and other members here.

Petty, egotistical and spiteful. But he does disguise it - unlike Doyle.

I agree on the alibi - I was referring to domino room vs. out front as far as competing theories go. Pat’s arguments are unreasonable - he presents his own subjective interpretation of the evidence as fact, and that’s just not how it is at all.

He’s been arguing that there is zero possible chance that Oswald could have gone outside, and that’s just flawed thinking. I’ve been trying to point out the ambiguity with hypotheticals, and got him to admit what I’d suspected from reading his website: his aversion to PM is based heavily on his own bias from meeting BWF, since he feels like there is no possible way Frazier could be anything less than completely credible.

I’ve been trying to find some common ground, and see if he’d support a unified effort to obtain better copies of the films instead of expending enormous effort trying to debunk something that’s undebunkable (his “interpretation” of the Hosty note is especially ridiculous) but I don’t think I really got anywhere.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 9:10 am

JFK_FNG wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Alibi definition:
1 : the explanation given by a person accused of a crime that he or she was somewhere else when the crime was committed. 2 : an excuse intended to avoid blame She made up an alibi for why she was late.

From the EF - Tom Gram said

I'm relatively neutral in this debate. It's not my intention to stir anything up here, and I do see your point that having two completely different and competing theories of Oswald's alibi can be counterproductive. However, I don't think the subjective interpretation of certain items of evidence by Murphy, Kamp, etc. is any less speculative than some of the interpretations in chapter 4 of your website. The evidence in many cases could really go either way.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/page/11/

Tom, as per the definition of alibi... as Oswald never gave the phoney account of being stopped by Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor, it doesn't count as an alibi. An alibi cannot be foisted on someone by the cops.

And that leads to the second point... it quite obviously was never meant to be an alibi, and even if Oswald agreed to use it in court as one, he was dooming himself. All the prosecution needed was evidence that it was possible for him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd in time for this mythicxal encounter - and they had that. The jury would certainly trust those recreations proving it possible, over any evidence that he ws not "out of breath" when encountered. I don't think the tester was either, for that matter.

Speer is just another Doyle but with more brains and self-control. Moreover, his vendetta against this has nothing to do with the state of the evidence. Like Doyle, it has everything to do with with personal grievances against me and other members here.

Petty, egotistical and spiteful. But he does disguise it - unlike Doyle.

I agree on the alibi - I was referring to domino room vs. out front as far as competing theories go. Pat’s arguments are unreasonable - he presents his own subjective interpretation of the evidence as fact, and that’s just not how it is at all.

He’s been arguing that there is zero possible chance that Oswald could have gone outside, and that’s just flawed thinking. I’ve been trying to point out the ambiguity with hypotheticals, and got him to admit what I’d suspected from reading his website: his aversion to PM is based heavily on his own bias from meeting BWF, since he feels like there is no possible way Frazier could be anything less than completely credible.

I’ve been trying to find some common ground, and see if he’d support a unified effort to obtain better copies of the films instead of expending enormous effort trying to debunk something that’s undebunkable (his “interpretation” of the Hosty note is especially ridiculous) but I don’t think I really got anywhere.

You and Roger have been doing a stirling job.

As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

In short, he added stuff for the sake of book sales.

Frazier may have influenced his thinking, but the biggest influence was personal grievance and petty revenge.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 9:21 am

greg_parker wrote:Alibi definition:
1 : the explanation given by a person accused of a crime that he or she was somewhere else when the crime was committed. 2 : an excuse intended to avoid blame She made up an alibi for why she was late.

From the EF - Tom Gram said

I'm relatively neutral in this debate. It's not my intention to stir anything up here, and I do see your point that having two completely different and competing theories of Oswald's alibi can be counterproductive. However, I don't think the subjective interpretation of certain items of evidence by Murphy, Kamp, etc. is any less speculative than some of the interpretations in chapter 4 of your website. The evidence in many cases could really go either way.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27999-prayer-man/page/11/

Tom, as per the definition of alibi... as Oswald never gave the phoney account of being stopped by Baker and Truly on the 2nd floor, it doesn't count as an alibi. An alibi cannot be foisted on someone by the cops.

And that leads to the second point... it quite obviously was never meant to be an alibi, and even if Oswald agreed to use it in court as one, he was dooming himself. All the prosecution needed was evidence that it was possible for him to get down from the 6th to the 2nd in time for this mythicxal encounter - and they had that. The jury would certainly trust those recreations proving it possible, over any evidence that he ws not "out of breath" when encountered. I don't think the tester was either, for that matter.

Speer is just another Doyle but with more brains and self-control. Moreover, his vendetta against this has nothing to do with the state of the evidence. Like Doyle, it has everything to do with with personal grievances against me and other members here.

Petty, egotistical and spiteful. But he does disguise it - unlike Doyle.

Speer has longed used two tactics.
1/ IMHO This means he's made his mind up, evidence to the contrary be damned.
2/ Anecdotes. When in doubt..waffle. His "does God exist" yarn is meant to prove..what? Something he can remember...but can't remember?.
More odious is his attempt to involve Malcom Blunt in the issue. Blunt has spent decades collecting documents in his area of expertise and through his series of talks with Barto he has detailed many missing documents. PM has never been on his radar. Barto himself discovered the Hosty note in Blunt's collection, much to Blunt's surprise. For Speer to claim Blunt has failed to endorse PM marks him as a Doyle level bullshitter.
IMHO.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 11:56 am

The problem with trying to solve this case is that so many so called researchers do not want the case to be solved. They would rather have the case go on unsolved for the next 60 years.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 12:16 pm

ROKC is not worth mentioning said Pat Speer's adviser, Brian Doyle, in a mini rant about ROKC. Karma may visit us after all!

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 12:49 pm

steely_dan wrote:ROKC is not worth mentioning said Pat Speer's adviser, Brian Doyle, in a mini rant about ROKC. Karma may visit us after all!

If you came up with Brian as a character in The Young Ones, the producers would tell you the character is too far out there.

Tue 16 Aug 2022, 1:23 pm

I can tell you that SPG "the hamster" would be appalled ...and abused...had Brian replaced Rick Mayall. Speer finds him credible so i guess that is ok
IMHO

Mon 22 Aug 2022, 7:33 pm

An old article by Greg.

HE NEVER HAD A PRAYER, MAN!

https://web.archive.org/web/20160402215806/http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/reopen-blog/he-never-had-a-prayer-man

Sun 28 Aug 2022, 2:19 pm

Another Sean Murphy classic.

Sun 28 Aug 2022, 2:21 pm

As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

Was that the stuff about the man with the gun, Greg?

Mon 05 Sep 2022, 2:55 pm

The defense rests.

Mon 05 Sep 2022, 6:31 pm

Vinny wrote:As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

Was that the stuff about the man with the gun, Greg?

Correct Vinny.
The original authors walked away from the project when they realised that Frazier was being economical with the truth.

Tue 06 Sep 2022, 2:21 am

Vinny wrote:As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

Was that the stuff about the man with the gun, Greg?

It's particularly unfortunate Vinny because now if ever Frazier comes out with a truth withheld all these years, namely that LHO was on the steps with him, then PM deniers will attack his credibility based on this past behavior. I doubt he ever will though. Not unless scans prove it first, then it won't be he who is the source for its becoming known and I think that's vitally important to him.

I'll just add that the flip side is that it impugns the credibility of everything he's said so far as well.

Tue 06 Sep 2022, 11:00 am

Jake_Sykes wrote:

Vinny wrote:As for Frazier - one of his biggest allies took him to task over a particular new claim in his book - no - not one he has presented at conferences or anywhere else - his response? You gotta give the readers what they want!

Was that the stuff about the man with the gun, Greg?

It's particularly unfortunate Vinny because now if ever Frazier comes out with a truth withheld all these years, namely that LHO was on the steps with him, then PM deniers will attack his credibility based on this past behavior. I doubt he ever will though. Not unless scans prove it first, then it won't be he who is the source for its becoming known and I think that's vitally important to him.

I'll just add that the flip side is that it impugns the credibility of everything he's said so far as well.

I'll just add that the flip side is that it impugns the credibility of everything he's said so far as well.

Yes it does.

Everything points to Oswald having stood outside on those steps at the time of the shots or immediately after they were fired. Eyewitnesses place him on the first floor up until 12.15pm, then the clincher - Norman and Jarman by their own account walked through the first floor at 12.25pm - through the rear dock entrance past the Domino room to the rear freight elevators....just as Oswald had described to his accusers..that's the alibi right there. What is the cherry on top is the fact that he also told his interrogators that he stepped outside onto the steps, and we have the Darnell frame and the Hosty notes to support that.

Frazier, recall, stated he could identify himself in the Darnell frame and made the observation that the Oswald type figure in the far left corner looked like Lovelady because of the receding hairline but that it could not have been him because he'd already headed for the railway yard. He has - most likely without realising it pretty much nailed that it was Oswald standing there beside him. And just as importantly at least for me is the fact that he could identify himself in the Darnell frame without hesitation but stumbles when it comes to the Oswald like figure right next to him....he knows it's not Lovelady - so??

Tue 06 Sep 2022, 12:02 pm

Frazier's evasion regarding PM speaks volumes. I sent him a book a few years ago. He could have addressed the core issue--is PM Oswald or not? No, he just slinks around trying to appear humble and wise, mumbling stupid shit.

If you're reading this Buell, we don't need you. We have more than enough facts to support the notion that Lee Oswald was on the steps next to you. Every normal person I've shown the Darnell image to thinks it's Lee.

History will show we are right. History will also show you were a person who had a chance to set the record straight but whiffed.

Tue 06 Sep 2022, 12:24 pm

Welcome back Stan.
Sheriff Doyle, with perfect timing, from both ends, vomited and launched a flaming hamster. The Davidson enhancement will come with parental control...

Prayer Man

Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man

HE NEVER HAD A PRAYER, MAN!

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

Re: Prayer Man

You ain't gonna know what you learn if you knew it.......

Checkmate.

Re: Prayer Man